DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments
2. The applicant’s response dated 25 March 2026 has been entered into the record and is considered fully responsive. The applicant has cancelled Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 23, and 24. The applicant has added new Claim 25. The applicant amended independent Claim 17 and dependent Claims 19, 20, and 21. Currently, Claims 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 25 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
4. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
5. Claims 17, 22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wanstrath et al. and Delta Kits
Wanstrath et al. (US Pub. No. 2010/0012857 A1) is directed toward a windshield repair device and method for repairing a windshield using an LED (title and abstract). Delta Kits (Professional Windshield Repair and Headlight Restoration Products Catalog, “15230 Ignite 6V LED UV Curing Lamp with Batteries, Charger, and Mount,” pg. 25. Published 2015) is a product catalog that has materials for fixing windshields using UV equipment (pg. 25).
Regarding Claim 17, Wanstrath et al. discloses a curing unit for use in repairing a vehicle windscreen (abstract, FIG. 1), comprising: a mount apparatus comprising a suction mount for securing the curing unit to the windscreen (“bridge suction cup 9 in ¶18 and FIG. 1) which (a) are attached to each other via the bridge 8 depicted as a one-armed variant in FIG. 1 (analogous to the rigid arm of the instant application); and a light emitter configured to emit light onto a repair zone (LED UV lights 4 in ¶19 and FIG. 1) and (b) the light is emitted by an LED device (LED UV lights 4 in ¶19 and FIG. 1) and is rated to emit at a single rated wavelength; and the device is capable of only emitting at that rated wavelength (other than any leakage wavelengths above and below the rated LED wavelength) as supported by ¶16 and ¶25.
Pertaining to amended Claim 17 for part (a), the distance between the suction mount and the light emitter is not specified in Wanstrath et al. Delta Kits sells various products directed at repair for window screens as indicated in their 2015 catalog (pg. 1: title). On pg. 25 of their products catalog, Delta Kit shows an apparatus comprising a UV light and a suction cup connected by an arm (photo reproduced below: SKU-15230). The length of the arm is 5-6 inches (as determined by comparison to the length of the UV light which is reported to be 5.25 inches in length on pg. 25 of the catalog). Converting length of the arm results in a distance of ~12.7 cm to 15.3 cm that separates the suction mount from the LED device. The product page for SKU-15230 indicates that the apparatus has the following benefits: powerful vacuum cup to mounts securely to glass and the mount further that holds the Ignite LED light at proper distance and angle for optimal curing (pg. 25). It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the prior art discloses values that overlap or fall within the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.I – Overlapping, Approaching, and Similar Ranges Amounts, and Proportions.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the separation distance between the suction mount and the LED device taught by Delta Kits in the curing unit of Wanstrath et al. with the reasonable expectation of having a system that is optimized for resin curing (i.e.: proper distance and angle).
[AltContent: textbox ([img-media_image1.png]
15230 Ignite 6V LED UV Curing Lamp with Batteries, Charger, and Mount” from pg. 25 of Delta Kits Product Catalog (2015).)]
Regarding Claim 22, Wanstrath et al. in view of Delta Kits discloses the curing unit of Claim 17, wherein the rigid arm is spaced at least 15 mm above a base of the mount apparatus in a perpendicular direction (“LED UV lights 4” in ¶19 and FIG. 1). It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the prior art discloses values that overlap or fall within the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.I – Overlapping, Approaching, and Similar Ranges Amounts, and Proportions.
Regarding Claim 25, Wanstrath et al. in view of Delta Kits discloses the curing unit of Claim 17, wherein the LED device is operably disposed directly above the repair zone as illustrated by FIG. 1.
6. Claims 19, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wanstrath et al. and Delta Kits as applied to Claim 17 above, and further in view of Sun.
Wanstrath et al. (US Pub. No. 2010/0012857 A1) is directed toward a windshield repair device and method for repairing a windshield using an LED (title and abstract). Delta Kits (Professional Windshield Repair and Headlight Restoration Products Catalog, “15230 Ignite 6V LED UV Curing Lamp with Batteries, Charger, and Mount,” pg. 25. Published 2015) is a product catalog that has materials for fixing windshields using UV equipment (pg. 25). Sun (CN106281176A – EPO translation) is directed toward windshield glass repairing agent and preparation method thereof (title).
Regarding Claims 19, 20, and 21, Wanstrath et al. (in view of Delta Kits) disclose in ¶25 of Wanstrath et al. that the repairs are conducted using UV with specific ranges of the visible, blue and UV light spectrum between 320 nm to 460 nm. However, Wanstrath et al. and Delta Kits does not provide specific details above wavelength selection as per the limitations of Claims 19, 20, and 21.
Sun is directed toward the repair of windshield glass and so is in the same field of art as Wanstrath et al. As per ¶7 of Sun, the purpose of this invention is to address the problems of poor traceability and inability to maintain strength in existing glass repair agents by providing a windshield repair agent and its preparation method. Sun et al. further indicates that the product has a refractive index similar to that of windshield glass leading to no visible crack repair. Sun et al. also indicates that the repair is fast, and the strength of the repair agent can be maintained (¶7 and ¶28). In ¶48, 58, 68, and 78, Sun specifically indicates that the wavelengths of 365 to 400 nm are used to facilitate the advantageous invention.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the curing unit of Wanstrath et al. and Delta Kits with the LED wavelength ranges discloses by Sun with the reasonable expectation of fixing damaged resin quickly with durable lasting repairs.
It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the prior art discloses values that overlap or fall within the claimed range as is the case for the wavelength limitations of Claims 19, 20, and 21 (the prior art shows wavelengths of 365 nm to 400 nm). See MPEP 2144.05.I – Overlapping, Approaching, and Similar Ranges Amounts, and Proportions.
Response to Arguments
7. The applicant has amended Claim 17 to include a previously optional claim limitation pertaining to the distance between the suction mount and the light emitter. The examiner agrees that Wanstrath et al. alone does not address the separation between the LED device and the suction mount. Wanstrath et al. does not disclose said separation, so the previous rejection under 35 USC § 102 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection is made in view of Wanstrath et al. and Delta Kits for Claims 17, 22, and 25 as well as new grounds of rejection made in view of Wanstrath et al., Delta Kits, and Sun et al. for Claims 19, 20, and 21. The updated reasons for rejection are explained in detail above.
Conclusion
8. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN SYLVESTER whose telephone number is 703-756-5536. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:15 AM to 4:30 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
10. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KEVIN SYLVESTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/JAMES LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights